Chairman Wontumi’s lawyer says plea-bargaining talks with state ended over unfavourable terms

Lawyer for Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, Samuel Atta Akyea, says plea-bargaining negotiations with the state over the Ghana Export-Import Bank (EXIM Bank) loan case broke down because the proposed terms were unfavourable to his client.

Mr Atta Akyea said the discussions failed to yield an agreement, leaving the defence to maintain its position that the dispute involving a GH¢14.3 million loan from EXIM Bank should be treated as a civil matter rather than a criminal case.

Speaking on Eyewitness News on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, the lawyer declined to provide details of the negotiations, citing the confidential nature of the engagements.

“I don’t want to delve too much into that because these were confidential engagements, but off the top of my head, I can say it was not favourable to our client at all,” he said.

Chairman Wontumi and his company, Wontumi Farms, are facing prosecution over allegations concerning funds obtained for a proposed large-scale farming project.

The charges include defrauding by false pretences, uttering a forged document, money laundering and intentionally causing financial loss to the state. Mr Boasiako has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Mr Atta Akyea has argued that the matter is fundamentally a debt-recovery dispute and should be resolved through an assessment of the outstanding loan.

He said EXIM Bank should reconcile its accounts with Wontumi Farms to establish the amount owed and enable the company to make the necessary payments.

“When they settle their accounts, they reconcile their accounts, and he sees his indebtedness, the company will find money to pay,” he said.

The lawyer further maintained that failure to repay a loan does not, in itself, establish criminal wrongdoing, adding that the defence would challenge the prosecution’s case.

The case against Chairman Wontumi and Wontumi Farms remains before the courts. Mr Atta Akyea did not disclose the specific terms proposed during the plea-bargaining discussions or identify the aspects the defence considered unacceptable.